The traditional playbook of corporate communications was forged in times of relative stability, predicated on the foundational assumption that crises are finite events with a clear beginning, a managed stabilization phase, and a definitive end. For decades, public relations professionals relied on structured timelines, allowing days to draft statements, consult legal teams, and polish messaging. However, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine fundamentally shattered these academic models, forcing corporate leaders and communications specialists to operate in an environment where uncertainty is no longer a temporary disruption, but a permanent state of affairs.
This paradigm shift is explored through the distinct experiences of two Ukrainian communicators who took divergent paths after the outbreak of war. Olga Safina, founder of Be First Communications, relocated to the United States, while Tetiana Atadzhanova, head of corporate communications at multinational healthcare company Acino, chose to remain in Ukraine to sustain operations under fire. Their reflections offer a profound re-evaluation of public relations, demonstrating how extreme geopolitical conflict exposes the limitations of classical crisis management and provides vital lessons for organizations navigating prolonged ambiguity worldwide.
The Breakdown of Traditional Crisis Communication
When the invasion began in February 2022, standard protocols instantly dissolved. Textbook rules advising executives to remain calm and follow pre-written crisis plans proved unworkable when physical survival and corporate continuity collided simultaneously. Atadzhanova notes that in the initial days, professional identity was entirely eclipsed by human instinct. Communicators were stripped of their polished vocabulary, confronting realities for which no linguistic framework existed.
Yet, as the immediate shock subsided, the role of communication transformed rather than disappeared. Employees, stakeholders, and partners did not require sophisticated corporate positioning; they sought immediate answers to existential questions: What is happening? What must I do next? Whom can I trust?
Safina recounts the harrowing reality of managing multiple crises concurrently during the spring of 2022, balancing employee evacuations, client deliverables, and contractor communications while grappling with personal loss. On a single day, communication teams faced the devastating task of notifying staff of a colleague’s death from a direct missile strike while simultaneously coordinating business continuity and emergency logistics. Such extreme pressures highlighted the obsolescence of conventional PR timelines, leaving only raw facts, radical honesty, and immediate prioritization as viable tools.
Actions Over Words: The Redefinition of Corporate Reputation
A central takeaway from the wartime communications experience is the collapse of the illusion that messaging can be managed independently of tangible reality. In peacetime, companies often rely on messaging strategies to shape reputation and mitigate risk. Under wartime conditions, however, words divorced from immediate action carry zero credibility.
Atadzhanova emphasizes that if an organization’s rhetoric is unsupported by visible actions, communication fails entirely. Statements expressing empathy or commitments to safety ring hollow if employees do not witness concrete protective measures. Consequently, corporate reputation ceases to be a product of carefully crafted press releases and becomes an exact reflection of organizational behavior.
This principle manifested practically when critical resources, such as fuel and medical supplies, vanished during the siege of Kyiv. Corporate entities, including Safina’s former employer, repurposed corporate assets—such as electric fleets—to establish delivery networks, housing initiatives, and evacuation corridors. Communication was no longer a theoretical exercise of stating "we are with you"; it became the transparent, legible narration of tangible survival efforts. This alignment of deed and declaration established that trust is forged not during favorable economic cycles, but during moments of acute vulnerability when organizations have the most to lose.
Communicating Without Answers and the Myth of Permanent Optimism
In standard corporate training, communicators are frequently advised to withhold statements until information is fully verified, polished, and optimized for positive reinforcement. In a continuous crisis, however, this approach backfires. Silence is rarely perceived as neutrality; instead, it is rapidly colonized by fear, speculation, and misinformation.
Both communicators advocate for an inverted approach: rapid dissemination of verified facts clearly separated from ongoing unknowns, followed by structured, regular updates. Safina critiques the peacetime reflex of padding statements with superfluous adjectives and positive spin, arguing that critical environments demand concise, unvarnished facts.
Furthermore, Atadzhanova challenges the conventional PR mandate to project perpetual optimism. In a multi-year conflict, the objective of the communicator is not to manufacture false hope or deny grim realities, but to preserve the psychological footing of stakeholders. By clearly outlining current facts, immediate actions, and reliable next steps, organizations provide functional resilience rather than hollow reassurance. False reassurance may temporarily lower anxiety, but once exposed, it permanently destroys the credibility required for subsequent emergencies.
Managing Chronic Uncertainty: Lessons for Global Business
As the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, it challenges the fundamental Western business model, which assumes that every disruption will eventually stabilize. Operating through sustained, overlapping crises requires organizations to transition from reactive adrenaline management to institutional preparedness.
Atadzhanova stresses the importance of categorization: distinguishing between genuine emergencies requiring immediate instruction, standard operational challenges, and routine corporate matters that require no communication campaign whatsoever. Over-communication during a prolonged crisis breeds noise, eventually causing stakeholders to tune out vital safety information. Consequently, communications teams must establish robust scenarios, alternative channels, and flexible protocols so that responses become reflexive rather than improvised.
The implications of this wartime communications model extend far beyond geopolitical conflict. In an era marked by macroeconomic volatility, regulatory shifts, supply chain fractures, and technological disruptions, businesses worldwide face protracted uncertainty. The core lesson from Ukrainian communicators is clear: organizations cannot simply wait out structural instability. Success requires accepting an adversarial new reality, integrating the communications function directly into executive decision-making, and prioritizing swift, transparent actions over delayed perfection. Ultimately, when a crisis has no end, communication must evolve from a tactical shield into an authentic instrument of survival.
